I'm curious, is there an issue that will be the last straw. If so, what is it? I know if I had voted for the guy the news that he's escalating the war would be enough to send me over the edge. What say you?

You did not have to vote for Obama to answer. If you are one who supports him because he's in the office then I'd be curious to hear your answer as well.

Direckshun

12-01-2009, 03:26 PM

It would have to be a combination of issues, but I'm liking what I see so far.

If there's no public option, if there's no movement on gay rights, if there's no drawdown in Iraq, if Guantanamo continues to exist, if climate change is not enacted, if no serious financial regulations are passed, then you can count me as an independent in 2012.

There might be others, but those leapt to mind.

Cannibal

12-01-2009, 03:26 PM

The war escalation does piss me off to no end. We should be pulling out of both Iraq and Afghanistan.

I'm tired of the wishy/washy, finger in the wind political attitude from Obama.

One thing about Bush, he may have fucked this country for a long time, but he got what he wanted done and didn't give shit what anyone thought about it.

Cannibal

12-01-2009, 03:31 PM

Also, just wanted to state that not only should we be pulling out of both wars, but also pull out of South Korea, Germany, and all other foreign bases we have. Take that money and use a portion for a tax cut for the middle class and half to pay down the debt.

orange

12-01-2009, 03:36 PM

What do you IMAGINE Obama's position on Afghanistan was?

Obama announced a plan — if elected — to deploy an additional 7,000 troops to Afghanistan. "As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan" "We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there" "I would not hold our military, our resources and our foreign policy hostage to a misguided desire to maintain permanent bases in Iraq," Obama said on July 14, 2008. "Troops in Afghanistan Need Help, Obama Says" By JEFF ZELENY Published: July 14, 2008 New York Times

After meeting with French President Nicolas Sarkozy in Paris on July 25 as part of a world tour, Obama said in the joint news conference with Sarkozy, "Afghanistan is a war that we have to win" because al-Qaeda and the radical Islamic Taliban movement cannot be allowed to establish new havens for planning "terrorist attacks . . . that could affect Paris or New York." Obama declared that there were no effective options to this policy, saying, "So we don't have a choice; we've got to finish the job." Obama said the United States "needs to send two additional brigades at least" to Afghanistan and praised Sarkozy for his willingness to send more French troops to that country. "Obama Gets Royal Treatment in France" By DAN BALZ Published: July 26, 2008 Washington Post

It's a commitment not based on merit. There is no breaking point to unconditional love.

BIG_DADDY

12-01-2009, 03:39 PM

What do you IMAGINE Obama's position on Afghanistan was?

Obama announced a plan ó if elected ó to deploy an additional 7,000 troops to Afghanistan. "As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan" "We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there" "I would not hold our military, our resources and our foreign policy hostage to a misguided desire to maintain permanent bases in Iraq," Obama said on July 14, 2008. "Troops in Afghanistan Need Help, Obama Says" By JEFF ZELENY Published: July 14, 2008 New York Times

After meeting with French President Nicolas Sarkozy in Paris on July 25 as part of a world tour, Obama said in the joint news conference with Sarkozy, "Afghanistan is a war that we have to win" because al-Qaeda and the radical Islamic Taliban movement cannot be allowed to establish new havens for planning "terrorist attacks . . . that could affect Paris or New York." Obama declared that there were no effective options to this policy, saying, "So we don't have a choice; we've got to finish the job." Obama said the United States "needs to send two additional brigades at least" to Afghanistan and praised Sarkozy for his willingness to send more French troops to that country. "Obama Gets Royal Treatment in France" By DAN BALZ Published: July 26, 2008 Washington Post

Although Obama had previously said he wanted all the U.S. troops out of Iraq within 16 months of becoming President, after he won the primary, he said he might "refine" that promise. telegraph.co.uk

On July 3, Obama reasserted his position on withdrawal saying "I have always said I would listen to commanders on the ground. I have always said the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability. That assessment has not changed and when I go to Iraq and I have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, Iím sure Iíll have more information and will continue to refine my policies." MSNBC

Of course, you knew that. You just like to imagine he promised instant, unconditional withdrawal because... well, I don't why.

Direckshun

12-01-2009, 03:45 PM

because... well, I don't why.

Because it makes life simpler.

Royal Fanatic

12-01-2009, 03:45 PM

Choosing between government-run health care and the Cap and Trade Bill is difficult, but I'm going to have to go with the Cap and Trade Bill.

This bill is a monstrosity, but we sure haven't heard much about it lately. It passed in the House last summer, and is being considered by the Senate.

The whole point of this idiotic legislation is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less.

It's the largest tax increase in history, and it comes at at time when we are in the longest and deepest recession since the Great Depression of 1929. This bill would drastically increase energy costs, all in the name of achieving what Obama considers to be a "social good": the reduction in emissions from coal-fired power plants.

Never mind that the debate on whether or not man-made global warming exists is far from over. Never mind that this bill would be completely ineffective in reducing overall total emissions unless all other nations in the world did the same thing. And never mind that this bill will have a crippling effect on the U.S. economy. The important thing to remember is that Obama will be doing something, anything, about that dreaded specter of global warming, and while he is doing so he will greatly enrich some of his most loyal supporters.

Under the Cap and Trade Bill, there is a cap on the amount of greenhouse gases that can be emitted by a company. Companies could buy and sell emissions credits that allow them to exceed the cap, and the government would give away emissions credits based upon some undetermined criteria. That's where the "trade" part of Cap and Trade comes in, and that's where Obama's supporters will be enriched, because his cronies will decide who gets the emissions credits and how much they'll be paid for them.

It's pure lunacy.

Barack Obama himself has said that electricity costs would "necessarily skyrocket" as a result of capping emissions levels, and that his job as president would be to convince the public and Congress that the benefits outweigh the costs.

I don't know about you, but skyrocketing electricity prices don't sound like a good thing to me.

I held my nose when I voted for the McCain/Palin ticket, but I wish like hell they had won. Obama and the Democrats are idiots, and they will do incredible damage to our economy.

BucEyedPea

12-01-2009, 04:52 PM

War/Economy They are entwined with each other. But at least under Bush it was just war. Under Obama it's both. Such a disapointment.

Cannibal

12-02-2009, 10:07 AM

War/Economy They are entwined with each other. But at least under Bush it was just war. Under Obama it's both. Such a disapointment.

The economy was crumbling long before Bush left office.

BigChiefFan

12-02-2009, 11:31 AM

Choosing between government-run health care and the Cap and Trade Bill is difficult, but I'm going to have to go with the Cap and Trade Bill.

This bill is a monstrosity, but we sure haven't heard much about it lately. It passed in the House last summer, and is being considered by the Senate.

The whole point of this idiotic legislation is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less.

It's the largest tax increase in history, and it comes at at time when we are in the longest and deepest recession since the Great Depression of 1929. This bill would drastically increase energy costs, all in the name of achieving what Obama considers to be a "social good": the reduction in emissions from coal-fired power plants.

Never mind that the debate on whether or not man-made global warming exists is far from over. Never mind that this bill would be completely ineffective in reducing overall total emissions unless all other nations in the world did the same thing. And never mind that this bill will have a crippling effect on the U.S. economy. The important thing to remember is that Obama will be doing something, anything, about that dreaded specter of global warming, and while he is doing so he will greatly enrich some of his most loyal supporters.

Under the Cap and Trade Bill, there is a cap on the amount of greenhouse gases that can be emitted by a company. Companies could buy and sell emissions credits that allow them to exceed the cap, and the government would give away emissions credits based upon some undetermined criteria. That's where the "trade" part of Cap and Trade comes in, and that's where Obama's supporters will be enriched, because his cronies will decide who gets the emissions credits and how much they'll be paid for them.

It's pure lunacy.

Barack Obama himself has said that electricity costs would "necessarily skyrocket" as a result of capping emissions levels, and that his job as president would be to convince the public and Congress that the benefits outweigh the costs.

I don't know about you, but skyrocketing electricity prices don't sound like a good thing to me.

I agree with all of that. Your last few lines are a little too broad to endorse. The rest of it it, is on the money. It would be nice if some actually saw that some Republicans are guilty, too, BTW. I like holding all parties accountable.

Reaper16

12-02-2009, 11:35 AM

Between healthcare and Obama's sustained libido for special interest groups the last straw has already happened. Its going to be hard for him to earn my vote in 2012.

BucEyedPea

12-02-2009, 11:47 AM

The economy was crumbling long before Bush left office.

No one is saying it wasn't certainly not I if you look at my past posts. But Obama is making it worse as he implements the wrong policies similar to what Japan did in the 1990's which kept them in it for ten years, as did FDR.

Sorry but we should be coming out of it by about now. Not out of it fully but starting to come out of it. Wall Street is the main beneficiary.

Calcountry

12-02-2009, 11:54 AM

The war escalation does piss me off to no end. We should be pulling out of both Iraq and Afghanistan.

I'm tired of the wishy/washy, finger in the wind political attitude from Obama.

One thing about Bush, he may have ****ed this country for a long time, but he got what he wanted done and didn't give shit what anyone thought about it.Definition of a leader, they lead. They don't stick their finger in the wind, deliberate for 3 months while the initiative is being lost. They don't appologise for the country that they were elected to lead, rather, they encourage the bright spots within that country they lead. They don't right off the people they disagree with, they understand that they are there, and humbly seek to change their minds(Bush failed miserably at this.). That is a leader. Obama, is a rabblerouser, a community organizer, a campaigner, and a teleprompt reader. HOPE you are happy with the CHANGE.

Calcountry

12-02-2009, 11:56 AM

War/Economy They are entwined with each other. But at least under Bush it was just war. Under Obama it's both. Such a disapointment.It should make you happy this country is about to collapse, we will then be forced out of the middle east.

That is all you really give 2 damns about.

ROYC75

12-02-2009, 12:03 PM

It would have to be a combination of issues, but I'm liking what I see so far.

If there's no public option, if there's no movement on gay rights, if there's no drawdown in Iraq, if Guantanamo continues to exist, if climate change is not enacted, if no serious financial regulations are passed, then you can count me as an independent in 2012.

There might be others, but those leapt to mind.

Get ready to be independent in 2012.

SNR

12-02-2009, 12:07 PM

It should make you happy this country is about to collapse, we will then be forced out of the middle east.

That is all you really give 2 damns about.You're assuming the United States recognizes stuff it can't continue to afford, and would simply cut spending to save itself.

We can't afford Iraq/Afghanistan now. Why should we pull out just because our economy hits rock bottom? That's not the American spirit we're all about.

ROYC75

12-02-2009, 12:12 PM

The economy was crumbling long before Bush left office.

All Bush's fault ? Has nothing to do with the house, the senate, the crooks behind the scenes, the deregulation under Clinton, etc.

I think we can pretty much blame this on every politician that held office in the last 20 years.

fan4ever

12-02-2009, 12:12 PM

It would have to be a combination of issues, but I'm liking what I see so far.

If there's no public option, if there's no movement on gay rights, if there's no drawdown in Iraq, if Guantanamo continues to exist, if climate change is not enacted, if no serious financial regulations are passed, then you can count me as an independent in 2012.

There might be others, but those leapt to mind.

I can only pray you become an independent in 2012.

ROYC75

12-02-2009, 12:14 PM

You're assuming the United States recognizes stuff it can't continue to afford, and would simply cut spending to save itself.

We can't afford Iraq/Afghanistan now. Why should we pull out just because our economy hits rock bottom? That's not the American spirit we're all about.

Nope, they will print more money and sell the notes to some other country.

Obo has us heading to full blown bankruptcy.

patteeu

12-02-2009, 12:15 PM

Sure - no problem.

Although Obama had previously said he wanted all the U.S. troops out of Iraq within 16 months of becoming President, after he won the primary, he said he might "refine" that promise. telegraph.co.uk

On July 3, Obama reasserted his position on withdrawal saying "I have always said I would listen to commanders on the ground. I have always said the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability. That assessment has not changed and when I go to Iraq and I have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, Iím sure Iíll have more information and will continue to refine my policies." MSNBC

Of course, you knew that. You just like to imagine he promised instant, unconditional withdrawal because... well, I don't why.

Obama never makes unconditional promises. All of his promises are conditioned to the point of meaninglessness. Of course, I suspect that you knew that.

ROYC75

12-02-2009, 12:19 PM

Obama never makes unconditional promises. All of his promises are conditioned to the point of meaninglessness. Of course, I suspect that you knew that.

Obama always speaks from the side of his mouth, Indians say, never trust man with crooked tongue.

HonestChieffan

12-02-2009, 12:38 PM

http://iowntheworld.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/pull-1.jpg

orange

12-02-2009, 12:48 PM

Obama never makes unconditional promises. All of his promises are conditioned to the point of meaninglessness. Of course, I suspect that you knew that.

He's never once told us to "read his lips." Nor has he quoted a "saying in Texas - Wanted: Dead or Alive."

You wingers sure do love that stuff. No wonder Obama can't get anywhere with you.

wild1

12-02-2009, 12:52 PM

Obama never makes unconditional promises. All of his promises are conditioned to the point of meaninglessness. Of course, I suspect that you knew that.

It would be a good game. I wonder what promises he's made that were actually verifiable and have been followed through and never recast in a different light?

wild1

12-02-2009, 12:53 PM

He's never once told us to "read his lips." Nor has he quoted a "saying in Texas - Wanted: Dead or Alive."

You wingers sure do love that stuff. No wonder Obama can't get anywhere with you.

No... he never deals in meaningless buzzwords and empty rhetoric....

Royal Fanatic

12-02-2009, 01:08 PM

I agree with all of that. Your last few lines are a little too broad to endorse. The rest of it it, is on the money. It would be nice if some actually saw that some Republicans are guilty, too, BTW. I like holding all parties accountable.
The Republicans are guilty as hell, and they have themselves to blame for much of this. The Bush administration was incredibly incompetent and arrogant, and this created a political climate in which a woefully inexperienced community organizer could actually win the general election.

KCWolfman

12-02-2009, 01:10 PM

The economy was crumbling long before Bush left office.

Yup, it coincides with when the Dems took control of the House and Senate

KCWolfman

12-02-2009, 01:13 PM

He's never once told us to "read his lips." Nor has he quoted a "saying in Texas - Wanted: Dead or Alive."

You wingers sure do love that stuff. No wonder Obama can't get anywhere with you.

Really??

From barackobama.com/taxes

Middle class families will see their taxes cut – and no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase. The typical middle class family will receive well over $1,000 in tax relief under the Obama plan, and will pay tax rates that are 20% lower than they faced under President Reagan. According to the Tax Policy Center, the Obama plan provides three times as much tax relief for middle class families as the McCain plan.

Families making more than $250,000 will pay either the same or lower tax rates than they paid in the 1990s. Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility. But no family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s. In fact, dividend rates would be 39 percent lower than what President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut.

Both are blatant lies

Royal Fanatic

12-02-2009, 01:24 PM

Really??

From barackobama.com/taxes

Middle class families will see their taxes cut Ė and no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase. The typical middle class family will receive well over $1,000 in tax relief under the Obama plan, and will pay tax rates that are 20% lower than they faced under President Reagan. According to the Tax Policy Center, the Obama plan provides three times as much tax relief for middle class families as the McCain plan.

Families making more than $250,000 will pay either the same or lower tax rates than they paid in the 1990s. Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility. But no family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s. In fact, dividend rates would be 39 percent lower than what President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut.

Both are blatant lies
You'd think Obama would have taken that off his web site by now.

orange

12-02-2009, 01:47 PM

Really??

Both are blatant lies

You say it so it must be true.

Really.

I believe you.

Others might expect you to actually post a side-by-side comparison of today's rates with the 90s rates, or some other actual proof, but not I.

What I DO want to know is what the hell that has to do with what patteau and I were talking about? Which is that Obama doesn't give simple one-word answers to complex questions (a good thing in my opinion; patteau apparently doesn't like it).

Chief Henry

12-02-2009, 01:54 PM

Only 4 people have voted. Does this mean only 4 people on this board admit
they still support Barry ?

KCWolfman

12-02-2009, 02:00 PM

You say it so it must be true.

Really.

I believe you.

Others might expect you to actually post a side-by-side comparison of today's rates with the 90s rates, or some other actual proof, but not I.

What I DO want to know is what the hell that has to do with what patteau and I were talking about? Which is that Obama doesn't give simple one-word answers to complex questions (a good thing in my opinion; patteau apparently doesn't like it).

So you are saying you don't mind being lied to as long as it is an extensive lie instead of a one liner?

Amazing.

Calcountry

12-02-2009, 02:00 PM

You're assuming the United States recognizes stuff it can't continue to afford, and would simply cut spending to save itself.

We can't afford Iraq/Afghanistan now. Why should we pull out just because our economy hits rock bottom? That's not the American spirit we're all about.Oh hell no. We must go forth with all manner of shit, divorced from reality: Cap and trade, stimulus I, II, III, IV, Health Care, Social Security, Medicare, S Chip, prescription drugs. Santa Claus has no saturation point.

Calcountry

12-02-2009, 02:03 PM

I knew this country was screwed, when both parties campaigned as if this was traditional times, and responded to every breaking issue with traditional platitudes.

It's not easy to sit in the chair.

orange

12-02-2009, 02:09 PM

So you are saying you don't mind being lied to as long as it is an extensive lie instead of a one liner?

Amazing.

No. I'm very subtly pointing out that you're firing blanks. First off, you're quoting a freaking CAMPAIGN SITE. That has nothing to do with the reality that President Obama faced in 2009.

As for Obama's speech last night - it is exactly the same position he had a year ago. Even the timeline. After spending four years in the Senate calling for timelines, did anyone really think he wouldn't have one? You should at least take comfort in the knowledge that he actually believes in them even when he's not campaigning.

patteeu

12-02-2009, 02:09 PM

You say it so it must be true.

Really.

I believe you.

Others might expect you to actually post a side-by-side comparison of today's rates with the 90s rates, or some other actual proof, but not I.

What I DO want to know is what the hell that has to do with what patteau and I were talking about? Which is that Obama doesn't give simple one-word answers to complex questions (a good thing in my opinion; patteau apparently doesn't like it).

Correcting the record here, I never said anything about one-word answers.

Taco John

12-02-2009, 02:11 PM

I find it amusing in a sardonic way that Obama has virtually neutered the anti-war left in this country. He's absolutely cut their nuts off.

KCWolfman

12-02-2009, 02:17 PM

No. I'm very subtly pointing out that you're firing blanks. First off, you're quoting a freaking CAMPAIGN SITE. That has nothing to do with the reality that President Obama faced in 2009.

As for Obama's speech last night - it is exactly the same position he had a year ago. Even the timeline. After spending four years in the Senate calling for timelines, did anyone really think he wouldn't have one? You should at least take comfort in the knowledge that he actually believes in them even when he's not campaigning.
So you don't mind him lying during his campaign as long as it is not a one line answer?

Again, amazing

jjjayb

12-02-2009, 02:19 PM

It would have to be a combination of issues, but I'm liking what I see so far.

If there's no public option, if there's no movement on gay rights, if there's no drawdown in Iraq, if Guantanamo continues to exist, if climate change is not enacted, if no serious financial regulations are passed, then you can count me as an independent in 2012.

There might be others, but those leapt to mind.

What country are you from? You really are an extreme left-wing liberal douche aren't you? I hear Venenzuela has cheap housing. Maybe you can move there?

orange

12-02-2009, 02:21 PM

So you don't mind him lying during his campaign as long as it is not a one line answer?

Again, amazing

One more time, since it doesn't seem to be sinking in...

WHAT LIE?

PROVE IT!

BucEyedPea

12-02-2009, 03:02 PM

It should make you happy this country is about to collapse, we will then be forced out of the middle east.

That is all you really give 2 damns about.

You're full of shit if you think I want my country to collapse. I'm trying to prevent it from that. That includes being stretched too thin across the globe. You Rs are just as responsible for contributing to America's collapse.

You're an angry man. Keep trying to spin it.

Calcountry

12-02-2009, 03:09 PM

You're full of shit if you think I want my country to collapse. I'm trying to prevent it from that. That includes being stretched too thin across the globe. You Rs are just as responsible for contributing to America's collapse.

Jan 2009 saw a 33,000,000,000 tax funded by a 135% taxation increase on tobacco products.
The proposed cap and trade will affect any household earning over 100,000 per year. What is to prove? Get your head out of the sand and at least be honest.
Posted via Mobile Device

BIG_DADDY

12-02-2009, 05:24 PM

No. I'm very subtly pointing out that you're firing blanks. First off, you're quoting a freaking CAMPAIGN SITE. That has nothing to do with the reality that President Obama faced in 2009.

As for Obama's speech last night - it is exactly the same position he had a year ago. Even the timeline. After spending four years in the Senate calling for timelines, did anyone really think he wouldn't have one? You should at least take comfort in the knowledge that he actually believes in them even when he's not campaigning.

Defending the indefensible, awesome. Obama is going down like a 16 year old on prom night.

orange

12-02-2009, 05:37 PM

Jan 2009 saw a 33,000,000,000 tax funded by a 135% taxation increase on tobacco products.
The proposed cap and trade will affect any household earning over 100,000 per year. What is to prove? Get your head out of the sand and at least be honest.
Posted via Mobile Device

Neither of which have anything to do with the INCOME TAX proposals in question - not the proposals from the campaign nor the actual bill that was passed.

Still waiting for you to show that ANY income tax bracket is higher than what it was in the '90s, which is what that blurb you quoted said wouldn't happen.

KCWolfman

12-02-2009, 05:48 PM

Neither of which have anything to do with the INCOME TAX proposals in question - not the proposals from the campaign nor the actual bill that was passed.

Still waiting for you to show that ANY income tax bracket is higher than what it was in the '90s, which is what that blurb you quoted said wouldn't happen.
I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan no family making less than $250,000 a year will see <b>ANY FORM OF TAX INCREASE</B>. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains tax, <b>NOT A SINGLE TAX~
</B> - September 2008.

Lie to yourself, Orange, but don't try to lie to the rest of us and pretend he said something he didn't.
Posted via Mobile Device

SNR

12-02-2009, 06:07 PM

They may just cut off his nuts in 2012. Unless the R's run Palin, then Obama is safe.We could just talk to this guy. He'll do it right now for free

I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan no family making less than $250,000 a year will see <b>ANY FORM OF TAX INCREASE</B>. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains tax, <b>NOT A SINGLE TAX~
</B> - September 2008.

On April 1, cigarette taxes went up. Certainly many people who smoke make less than $250,000. Should we rate this Promise Broken?

This launched an interesting debate here at PolitiFact. Was the final part of Obama's statement "not any of your taxes" intended as a sweeping declaration against any tax, or was he speaking only in the context of income-based taxes? We noted that his statement began with the phrase "Under my plan ..."

We looked to our coverage during the campaign for greater clarity.

Obama has long been on record supporting the cigarette tax increase. During the campaign, Obama often said he supported legislation to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program. At the time, that legislation was in Congress, and even then it included higher cigarette taxes. By saying he supported the SCHIP legislation, Obama was supporting the increased cigarette taxes to pay for it.

SCHIP was among the first pieces of legislation to come to Obama's desk, and he signed it Feb. 4, 2009. We rated it as a Promise Kept .

Another part of our deliberation was that when Obama was on the campaign trail saying that "no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase," his examples were all federal income or payroll taxes. Cigarette taxes are a federal excise tax, which is a tax on goods. (Other federal excise taxes are levied on things like alcohol, gasoline and firearms.) These are not taxes that affect people based on income level, but rather based on whether they purchase certain goods. So while some families who make less than $250,000 a year will be affected by cigarette taxes, the taxes are based on their decision to buy cigarettes, not based on their income.

Obama's promise on the campaign trail may have been a bit of rhetorical excess based on his income tax plan, which seeks to exempt lower incomes from tax increases. Obama has taken specific steps to change that tax code, such as creating capital gains taxes that only apply to higher incomes, that are aimed at protecting the middle class from new taxes. Also, the cigarette tax does not hit all families that make less than $250,000 a year, but only those who choose to smoke. Finally, Obama clearly stated during the campaign that he supported legislation that would raise the cigarette tax, and he never mentioned any form of excise tax when making the promise.

Still, it's a tax increase. People who smoke will pay higher taxes under the measure that Obama signed. We added this promise to our database and rated it a Compromise.

As for Obama's speech last night - it is exactly the same position he had a year ago. Even the timeline. After spending four years in the Senate calling for timelines, did anyone really think he wouldn't have one? You should at least take comfort in the knowledge that he actually believes in them even when he's not campaigning.

Direckshun was trying to find someone to bet that he wouldn't have one. :shrug:

patteeu

12-02-2009, 06:48 PM

On April 1, cigarette taxes went up. Certainly many people who smoke make less than $250,000. Should we rate this Promise Broken?

This launched an interesting debate here at PolitiFact. Was the final part of Obama's statement "not any of your taxes" intended as a sweeping declaration against any tax, or was he speaking only in the context of income-based taxes? We noted that his statement began with the phrase "Under my plan ..."

We looked to our coverage during the campaign for greater clarity.

Obama has long been on record supporting the cigarette tax increase. During the campaign, Obama often said he supported legislation to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program. At the time, that legislation was in Congress, and even then it included higher cigarette taxes. By saying he supported the SCHIP legislation, Obama was supporting the increased cigarette taxes to pay for it.

SCHIP was among the first pieces of legislation to come to Obama's desk, and he signed it Feb. 4, 2009. We rated it as a Promise Kept .

Another part of our deliberation was that when Obama was on the campaign trail saying that "no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase," his examples were all federal income or payroll taxes. Cigarette taxes are a federal excise tax, which is a tax on goods. (Other federal excise taxes are levied on things like alcohol, gasoline and firearms.) These are not taxes that affect people based on income level, but rather based on whether they purchase certain goods. So while some families who make less than $250,000 a year will be affected by cigarette taxes, the taxes are based on their decision to buy cigarettes, not based on their income.

Obama's promise on the campaign trail may have been a bit of rhetorical excess based on his income tax plan, which seeks to exempt lower incomes from tax increases. Obama has taken specific steps to change that tax code, such as creating capital gains taxes that only apply to higher incomes, that are aimed at protecting the middle class from new taxes. Also, the cigarette tax does not hit all families that make less than $250,000 a year, but only those who choose to smoke. Finally, Obama clearly stated during the campaign that he supported legislation that would raise the cigarette tax, and he never mentioned any form of excise tax when making the promise.

Still, it's a tax increase. People who smoke will pay higher taxes under the measure that Obama signed. We added this promise to our database and rated it a Compromise.

I believe you're the one lying to yourself and pretending he never said what he said.

I guess you've given up on trying to find anyone whose actual INCOME TAX rate is higher than in the '90s - right?

I'm afraid I've got to side with KCWolfman on this. "Not a single tax" is pretty definitive. Yes, he made inconsistent statements during the campaign and yes, he probably had his fingers crossed behind his back when he said it, but what you call "rhetorical excess" is clearly an explicit untruth. You know as well as I do that in addition to being untrue, his statement was intended to give the impression that no taxes of any kind would be raised on people under a certain income level.

orange

12-02-2009, 06:58 PM

You know as well as I do that in addition to being untrue, his statement was intended to give the impression that no taxes of any kind would be raised on people under a certain income level.

It was not untrue and YOU know that.

He was clearly, specifically, and uniquely speaking about his INCOME TAX PLAN.

As he said, even in the part KCWolfman quoted: "Under my plan..." http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=6311876&postcount=55

In a part of his campaign speech devoted to his INCOME TAX PLAN.

Holding anyone responsible when addressing some matter X for EVERY OTHER POSSIBLE MATTER Y is sophistry in the first degree.

.......................

Here's a simple football-related equivalent:

"Under NFL rules, Overtime is sudden-death."

That is certainly true. Does it mean that Overtime is sudden-death in the NCAA?

KCWolfman

12-02-2009, 07:34 PM

On April 1, cigarette taxes went up. Certainly many people who smoke make less than $250,000. Should we rate this Promise Broken?

This launched an interesting debate here at PolitiFact. Was the final part of Obama's statement "not any of your taxes" intended as a sweeping declaration against any tax, or was he speaking only in the context of income-based taxes? We noted that his statement began with the phrase "Under my plan ..."

We looked to our coverage during the campaign for greater clarity.

Obama has long been on record supporting the cigarette tax increase. During the campaign, Obama often said he supported legislation to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program. At the time, that legislation was in Congress, and even then it included higher cigarette taxes. By saying he supported the SCHIP legislation, Obama was supporting the increased cigarette taxes to pay for it.

SCHIP was among the first pieces of legislation to come to Obama's desk, and he signed it Feb. 4, 2009. We rated it as a Promise Kept .

Another part of our deliberation was that when Obama was on the campaign trail saying that "no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase," his examples were all federal income or payroll taxes. Cigarette taxes are a federal excise tax, which is a tax on goods. (Other federal excise taxes are levied on things like alcohol, gasoline and firearms.) These are not taxes that affect people based on income level, but rather based on whether they purchase certain goods. So while some families who make less than $250,000 a year will be affected by cigarette taxes, the taxes are based on their decision to buy cigarettes, not based on their income.

Obama's promise on the campaign trail may have been a bit of rhetorical excess based on his income tax plan, which seeks to exempt lower incomes from tax increases. Obama has taken specific steps to change that tax code, such as creating capital gains taxes that only apply to higher incomes, that are aimed at protecting the middle class from new taxes. Also, the cigarette tax does not hit all families that make less than $250,000 a year, but only those who choose to smoke. Finally, Obama clearly stated during the campaign that he supported legislation that would raise the cigarette tax, and he never mentioned any form of excise tax when making the promise.

Still, it's a tax increase. People who smoke will pay higher taxes under the measure that Obama signed. We added this promise to our database and rated it a Compromise.

I believe you're the one lying to yourself and pretending he never said what he said.

I guess you've given up on trying to find anyone whose actual INCOME TAX rate is higher than in the '90s - right?
Pretending? My statement is a direct quote, so I am not pretending anything at all.

My apologies if you can't read it or choose not to believe it, but sincerely, your doubt is not my problem in any way.

Parse pieces his promise, ignore the quote, or try to tear bits of my statement from the original, but the fact is after only a few days in office he had already broken his most vehement campaign promise. Ergo, he lied.
Posted via Mobile Device

orange

12-02-2009, 07:39 PM

I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan no family making less than $250,000 a year will see <b>ANY FORM OF TAX INCREASE</B>. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains tax, <b>NOT A SINGLE TAX~
</B> - September 2008.

Pretending? My statement is a direct quote, so I am not pretending anything at all.

What PLAN was he talking about?

You're reading more into one of his one-off comments while selectively ignoring his actual words than Denise ever could. Congratulations.

KCWolfman

12-02-2009, 07:41 PM

What PLAN was he talking about?

NOT A SINGLE TAX
Posted via Mobile Device

dirk digler

12-02-2009, 07:47 PM

You know as well as I do that in addition to being untrue, his statement was intended to give the impression that no taxes of any kind would be raised on people under a certain income level.

Kind of like Bush\Cheney giving the impression that we were about to be attacked by Iraq with nukes?

I will have to side with Orange on this. He was clearly talking about income tax and let's be honest less than 20% of the population smokes so this isn't affecting everyone unlike an income tax.

He also has been for raising cigarette taxes for awhile so once again it is not like he was hiding anything.

KCWolfman

12-02-2009, 07:49 PM

Kind of like Bush\Cheney giving the impression that we were about to be attacked by Iraq with nukes?

GWB did it, why can't we?

I thought was about Hope and <b>CHANGE</b>?
Posted via Mobile Device

dirk digler

12-02-2009, 07:53 PM

GWB did it, why can't we?

I thought was about Hope and CHANGE?
Posted via Mobile Device

It is but he can't make people read and comprehend correctly. :D

KCWolfman

12-02-2009, 08:02 PM

It is but he can't make people read and comprehend correctly. :D

Or think for themselves.
Posted via Mobile Device

dirk digler

12-02-2009, 08:07 PM

Or think for themselves.
Posted via Mobile Device

Very true that is why I am very disappointed in you :)

KCWolfman

12-02-2009, 08:08 PM

Very true that is why I am very disappointed in you :)

Did Obama give you permission to be disappointed?
Posted via Mobile Device

dirk digler

12-02-2009, 08:12 PM

Did Obama give you permission to be disappointed?
Posted via Mobile Device

No I haven't talked to him today

patteeu

12-02-2009, 08:36 PM

It was not untrue and YOU know that.

He was clearly, specifically, and uniquely speaking about his INCOME TAX PLAN.

As he said, even in the part KCWolfman quoted: "Under my plan..." http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=6311876&postcount=55

In a part of his campaign speech devoted to his INCOME TAX PLAN.

Holding anyone responsible when addressing some matter X for EVERY OTHER POSSIBLE MATTER Y is sophistry in the first degree.

.......................

Here's a simple football-related equivalent:

"Under NFL rules, Overtime is sudden-death."

That is certainly true. Does it mean that Overtime is sudden-death in the NCAA?

I understand that he was trying to be slick with the language but that he went too far to call what he said truthful. Too far. He wanted to narrowly address income taxes while sounding like he was speaking more broadly and he just screwed up. He wasn't being straight. Whether he was intentionally lying or not is a matter of opinion, I guess.

patteeu

12-02-2009, 08:38 PM

Kind of like Bush\Cheney giving the impression that we were about to be attacked by Iraq with nukes?

I will have to side with Orange on this. He was clearly talking about income tax and let's be honest less than 20% of the population smokes so this isn't affecting everyone unlike an income tax.

He also has been for raising cigarette taxes for awhile so once again it is not like he was hiding anything.

No, it's not like that because as much as people want to annoint Obama as the best speaker ever, Bush and Cheney were better at this sort of thing. They didn't go as far as Obama did here.

Saul Good

12-02-2009, 08:38 PM

He was clearly, specifically, and uniquely speaking about his INCOME TAX PLAN.

ANY FORM OF TAX INCREASE...NOT A SINGLE TAX

Clearly, he was not speaking about any specific, unique type of tax.

dirk digler

12-02-2009, 08:47 PM

No, it's not like that because as much as people want to annoint Obama as the best speaker ever, Bush and Cheney were better at this sort of thing. They didn't go as far as Obama did here.

In the closing days of September 2002, with a congressional vote fast approaching on authorizing the use of military force in Iraq, Bush told the nation in his weekly radio address: "The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. . . . This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year."

I'd think that by now you'd realize that the quote you posted was a truthful recitation of faulty intelligence, not the kind of falsehood that Obama told about his own intentions.

dirk digler

12-02-2009, 09:29 PM

I'd think that by now you'd realize that the quote you posted was a truthful recitation of faulty intelligence, not the kind of falsehood that Obama told about his own intentions.

What falsehood? He has been on record for a long time in support of the cig tax. He wasn't trying to hide anything. In the quote provided he was clearly talking about his tax plan and not raising people's income taxes.

Cannibal

12-02-2009, 09:58 PM

It's funny, very funny to me that the nutters have to use the cigarette tax (a personal choice) as their example. They're grasping at straws again.

What falsehood? He has been on record for a long time in support of the cig tax. He wasn't trying to hide anything. In the quote provided he was clearly talking about his tax plan and not raising people's income taxes.

So he meant to say ANY TAX AT ALL, except tobacco taxes?

KCWolfman

12-02-2009, 11:18 PM

It's funny, very funny to me that the nutters have to use the cigarette tax (a personal choice) as their example. They're grasping at straws again.

And cap and trade. After all, using energy is a personal choice, isn't it?

The extremes people will go to delude themselves always amaze me.

Reaper16

12-02-2009, 11:18 PM

Read my lips: no new discussions points.

Guru

12-03-2009, 12:26 AM

how about the election.

patteeu

12-03-2009, 01:11 AM

What falsehood? He has been on record for a long time in support of the cig tax. He wasn't trying to hide anything. In the quote provided he was clearly talking about his tax plan and not raising people's income taxes.

"ANY form of tax increase"

"not a single tax"

Those are global statements. He goes beyond the income tax here, even if he didn't mean to. BTW, before all is said and done, there are going to be a lot more than cigarette taxes going up on those people. He's already lied. His lie is going to get bigger.

orange

12-03-2009, 05:48 AM

"ANY form of tax increase"

"not a single tax"

Those are global statements. He goes beyond the income tax here, even if he didn't mean to. BTW, before all is said and done, there are going to be a lot more than cigarette taxes going up on those people. He's already lied. His lie is going to get bigger.

Your efforts are becoming laughable.

Try this line of logic on your insurance agent. Insist on the additional coverage from a plan you didn't discuss.

I'm pretty sure you know what answer you'll get.

BigRedChief

12-03-2009, 07:29 AM

how about the election.We had one of those. He won fair and square. For the most part he has only done what he told the people during the campaign he would do if elected. This was not a bait and switch campaign like Bush's was. Compassionate conservative? Where did the compassion go? But thats another thread.....

I've already posted a thread and list of the BS that Obama is doing wrong. No regrets, no way, evah. Mccain would have us in another shooting war by now and with the stress on his 72 year old heart, it could have stopped beating and we would have Palin as commander in chief? The President? Palin?ROFL

Royal Fanatic

12-03-2009, 07:36 AM

The prospect of Sarah Palin as President scares the hell out of me. But then I think about Health Care Reform and Cap & Trade and I realize she couldn't possibly be as bad as what we have.

patteeu

12-03-2009, 08:44 AM

Your efforts are becoming laughable.

Try this line of logic on your insurance agent. Insist on the additional coverage from a plan you didn't discuss.

I'm pretty sure you know what answer you'll get.

The source you quoted earlier in the thread, politfact, rates this promise as a compromise rather than a promise kept (or a promise broken). To consider it a promise kept based on the "Under my plan..." language, wouldn't be much different than calling it a promise kept even if he raised income taxes on the middle class because the new plan would be a different plan than the specific vaporware plan that he was talking about at that moment. That's too far to stretch the concept of honesty, for me.

I have to wonder if it would have been too far for you too during the primary campaign when Hillary was still running against him. You've done a remarkable job of falling in line behind your party's standard bearer. Your flexibility is admirable. ;)

patteeu

12-03-2009, 08:50 AM

We had one of those. He won fair and square. For the most part he has only done what he told the people during the campaign he would do if elected. This was not a bait and switch campaign like Bush's was. Compassionate conservative? Where did the compassion go? But thats another thread.....

I've already posted a thread and list of the BS that Obama is doing wrong. No regrets, no way, evah. Mccain would have us in another shooting war by now and with the stress on his 72 year old heart, it could have stopped beating and we would have Palin as commander in chief? The President? Palin?ROFL

Huh? The "compassion" is what many conservatives were so upset with Bush about. More federal involvement in education, bigger spending on medicare, a foreign policy emphasis on spreading democracy, etc.

As true as it is that Palin wouldn't be the best Republican for the job, Palin > McCain and Palin >>> Obama.

PunkinDrublic

12-03-2009, 09:04 AM

Obama wasn't my first choice in the Democratic primaries. My problem with Obama is that he compromises too much and believes he can negotiate with republicans who are diametrically (probably spelled wrong fuck off) opposed to him. Fuck reaching across the aisle. The Republicans are out of power for a reason. I will vote for the Democratic nominee as long as the Republicans keep clinging to the failed ideology of neoconservatism.

Cannibal

12-03-2009, 10:59 PM

Obama wasn't my first choice in the Democratic primaries. My problem with Obama is that he compromises too much and believes he can negotiate with republicans who are diametrically (probably spelled wrong **** off) opposed to him. **** reaching across the aisle. The Republicans are out of power for a reason. I will vote for the Democratic nominee as long as the Republicans keep clinging to the failed ideology of neoconservatism.

Spot on. I agree.

Obama needs to stop being a puss and lead.

BigRedChief

12-04-2009, 07:36 AM

Spot on. I agree.

Obama needs to stop being a puss and lead.I agree. He needs to quit compromising and break out the hammer and get some chit done. And I told that to the DNC chair, Tim Kaine last week.

KCWolfman

12-04-2009, 10:11 AM

Spot on. I agree.

Obama needs to stop being a puss and lead.

What experience does he have leading?

This is the exact point your lefties bashed Palin on. At least she was only VP on the ticket.

BucEyedPea

12-04-2009, 10:18 AM

What experience does he have leading?

This is the exact point your lefties bashed Palin on. At least she was only VP on the ticket.

That to me was the silver lining should he become president. This way his agenda can't get implemented. Unfortunately, it does affect his FP in the end when I feel his instincts are more correct there.

Royal Fanatic

12-04-2009, 10:19 AM

Obama wasn't my first choice in the Democratic primaries. My problem with Obama is that he compromises too much and believes he can negotiate with republicans who are diametrically (probably spelled wrong fuck off) opposed to him. Fuck reaching across the aisle. The Republicans are out of power for a reason. I will vote for the Democratic nominee as long as the Republicans keep clinging to the failed ideology of neoconservatism.
I agree that the Republicans are out of power for a reason. Over the last 8 years they displayed amazing levels of arrogance and incompetence, and I fully planned to vote Democratic in 2008.

But then Obama came along with his promises of bread and circuses for everyone, along with his promises that nobody's taxes would increase. Well, OK, he'd raise the taxes of people making over $250,000, but fuck them anyway, right?

I knew Obama was full of shit, and I decided that even though I despised what George W. Bush had done, and even though the McCain/Palin ticket was incredibly weak, I just couldn't vote for Obama. I didn't trust him. It turns out I was right.

I'd rather have a neocon in the White House than a guy who wants to radically transform our economy and our society the way Obama does. It used to piss me off when the Republicans called him a Socialist, but now it's looking more and more like they were spot on. The trillion dollar health care "reform" is going to result in worse health care and much higher costs for anyone who has decent health insurance today, and the Cap & Trade bill is going to cause energy costs to skyrocket. When energy costs skyrocket, it will lead to cost-push inflation that will make the inflation of the 1970s look like a walk in the park.

I'd happily vote for a moderate Democrat. Hell, I'd even vote for Hillary. But no way in hell will I vote for Obama in 2012. I'll vote Republican even if they run a ticket of Sarah Palin and Jesse "the body" Ventura.

KCWolfman

12-04-2009, 10:39 AM

But then Obama came along with his promises of bread and circuses for everyone, along with his promises that nobody's taxes would increase.

I didn't get any bread

BigRedChief

12-04-2009, 10:56 AM

I didn't get any breadI did. $4,500 and $2,700 off my tax bill. Plus another $800 in tax rebate.

jjjayb

12-04-2009, 11:10 AM

I did. $4,500 and $2,700 off my tax bill. Plus another $800 in tax rebate.

I'm glad you're so easily bought off.

BigRedChief

12-04-2009, 11:16 AM

I'm glad you're so easily bought off.Dude, look it up. I was on board with Obama before he won the Iowa cacus's. But nice try at deflection and attempt to minimize my opinion. You can try again. we are allowed doovers.

Donger

12-04-2009, 11:22 AM

I did. $4,500 and $2,700 off my tax bill. Plus another $800 in tax rebate.

Where's UP we need him? "I got mine, so f*ck you!"

Chief Henry

12-04-2009, 11:34 AM

Dude, look it up. I was on board with Obama before he won the Iowa cacus's. But nice try at deflection and attempt to minimize my opinion. You can try again. we are allowed doovers.

Alot of the people who were for Obama, are not now. His approval ratings
are tanking on his individual policies. The independants have jumped off his
rutterless ship.

He's got 10% unemployment now and not a clue on getting jobs back into the country. His job summit was a joke. The coming days after the Christmas season will show even higher unemployment. Obama's poll numbers will get even worse.

Just my .02

Calcountry

12-04-2009, 11:45 AM

I knew Obama was full of shit, and I decided that even though I despised what George W. Bush had done, and even though the McCain/Palin ticket was incredibly weak, I just couldn't vote for Obama. I didn't trust him. It turns out I was right.

It used to piss me off when the Republicans called him a Socialist, but now it's looking more and more like they were spot on. .:clap::clap: Naww, you are just a racist. The only reason you feel this way, is because he is black. ROFLROFL

Calcountry

12-04-2009, 11:47 AM

Dude, look it up. I was on board with Obama before he won the Iowa cacus's. .John Kerry voice on/ I was for the trillion dollars before I was against it.

Calcountry

12-04-2009, 11:52 AM

They may just cut off his nuts in 2012. Unless the R's run Palin, then Obama is safe."If you have an idea on how to create jobs, let me know". ROFLROFL By 2012 we can run Freaking Bob Dole(not bob damned dole) and win.

This tool will be lucky to avoid impeachment if he keeps fugging up as bad as he is.

Appologise for America, then go and ask West point to fight a war. Got to love the dude. He is the gift that keeps on giving.

Spends a trillion dollars, then the next day scratches his chin and says, gee, we need to get the deficit under control.

The man is in a fugging rowboat without a paddle.

Garcia Bronco

12-04-2009, 11:54 AM

Spot on. I agree.

Obama needs to stop being a puss and lead.

Lead what? He doesn't draft legislation...neither now or (ironically) when he was in congress. He isn't reaching across the chamber...there is nothing to reach over too. Democrats don't need one republican vote to pass a thing. It's his own party. Call it what it is.

Royal Fanatic

12-04-2009, 12:46 PM

I didn't get any bread
But at least you get to see the circus.

Baby Lee

12-04-2009, 12:59 PM

I'd happily vote for a moderate Democrat. Hell, I'd even vote for Hillary. But no way in hell will I vote for Obama in 2012. I'll vote Republican even if they run a ticket of Sarah Palin and Jesse "the body" Ventura.
Palin and Ventura are matter and anti-matter, they cannot co-exist.

And that said, I have NO IDEA what he thinks from moment to moment, the guy is a walking impromptu conspiracy confabulation machine. He's what you'd get if Richard Belzer and Ted Nugent sexed it up and had a kid.

Just this week he was on Howard talking about how secret high energy experiments deep in rural Alaska caused the Indonesian Tsunamis, oh and the Northern Lights. And how those experiments were going to culminate in a global thought control machine.

Brock

12-04-2009, 01:06 PM

It sounds a lot less nutty when Jesse Ventura is saying it.

Royal Fanatic

12-04-2009, 01:08 PM

It sounds a lot less nutty when Jesse Ventura is saying it.
Kind of like pro Wrestling. It just hasn't been the same since he left.

Cannibal

12-04-2009, 01:13 PM

Ventura was referring to HAARP. The government is supposedly using a billion watts of radio waves to heat up the ionosphere and supposedly has been doing so since the late 80's, early 90's.

Cannibal

12-04-2009, 01:14 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haarp

KCWolfman

12-04-2009, 01:54 PM

I did. $4,500 and $2,700 off my tax bill. Plus another $800 in tax rebate.

Woot, how is that getting paid by the way? Obamabucks?

I have two kids in college, three in the military, and one with a year to go.

I didn't get squat, nor did my children.

KCWolfman

12-04-2009, 01:56 PM

Ventura was referring to HAARP. The government is supposedly using a billion watts of radio waves to heat up the ionosphere and supposedly has been doing so since the late 80's, early 90's.

What caused the northern lights prior to 1982?

Baby Lee

12-04-2009, 02:00 PM

Ventura was referring to HAARP. The government is supposedly using a billion watts of radio waves to heat up the ionosphere and supposedly has been doing so since the late 80's, early 90's.

Psssst, it's not so much whether the things he theorizes about do or don't EXIST, it's whether or not they're responsible for the things he hypothesizes.

Pass it on. ;)

BigRedChief

12-04-2009, 02:30 PM

Woot, how is that getting paid by the way? Obamabucks?uhhh from your personal checking account?

KCWolfman

12-04-2009, 02:36 PM

uhhh from your personal checking account?

Pretty much. Mine, my kids in the service, etc etc

I guess if you are into redistribution of wealth, it makes sense.

BigRedChief

12-04-2009, 02:46 PM

Pretty much. Mine, my kids in the service, etc etc

I guess if you are into redistribution of wealth, it makes sense.You could just cut a check to me and I'll pass it along to the government.

Cannibal

12-04-2009, 03:26 PM

Psssst, it's not so much whether the things he theorizes about do or don't EXIST, it's whether or not they're responsible for the things he hypothesizes.

Pass it on. ;)

No shit sherlock. Nowhere in my post did I say what Ventura said was true.

Cannibal

12-04-2009, 03:26 PM

What caused the northern lights prior to 1982?

See post 118.

King_Chief_Fan

12-05-2009, 10:03 AM

I'm curious, is there an issue that will be the last straw. If so, what is it? I know if I had voted for the guy the news that he's escalating the war would be enough to send me over the edge. What say you?

You did not have to vote for Obama to answer. If you are one who supports him because he's in the office then I'd be curious to hear your answer as well.

I am actually pleased so far. He has done everything I expected him to do........NOTHING! His failures will continue.

RedNeckRaider

12-05-2009, 11:22 AM

:clap::clap: Naww, you are just a racist. The only reason you feel this way, is because he is black. ROFLROFL

I hate the white part of him, the black part makes America look kinda hip~

Sully

12-05-2009, 03:07 PM

What does saying "enough" look like?
Does it mean I have to create some cutesy nicknames, start 100 of the same basic thread, and start calling those I disagree with names?

patteeu

12-07-2009, 08:44 AM

What does saying "enough" look like?
Does it mean I have to create some cutesy nicknames, start 100 of the same basic thread, and start calling those I disagree with names?

What did it look like when you'd had enough of the previous POTUS?

Chief Henry

01-14-2010, 06:21 PM

Obama's still tanking in the polls. What will be the last straw ?

I'm guessing the economy and his lack of allowing the american people see his
promised healthcare meetings on C-span.

Norman Einstein

01-15-2010, 06:11 AM

It's a combination of promises he failed to keep, policy, lies, pure deception on the part of the administration and the blatant wast of government funds for personal uses. Like taking taking his wife to dinner in NYC, no other reason for firing up any one of the jets at his disposal than to do it.